Current generation BMW M3 to be last naturally aspirated M car

[hotrodalex]

C'mon, dude, peak torque is irrelevant. Let's not go there.

Also, the BMW has peak torque RPM at exactly half that of the Audi (1,750 rpm vs. 3,500 rpm).

[GoCougs]

The 550i weighs like 4300lbs

ALL those cars are 4,000lbs+...

[GoCougs]

Length has little effect on aerodynamic drag until you start getting really long (like tractor trailer).  The few inches difference between a 7er and A8 is moot.  And in 0-60, aerodynamic drag is a very very minor player.  Like single digit horsepower levels up until 50 mph or so.

True, it's a small difference, but the A8L is bigger.

[sportyaccordy]

C'mon, dude, peak torque is irrelevant. Let's not go there.

Nah, the two cars get identical EPA ratings at 19/27 vs. 19/28, and the IS350 gets 20/27. Zero advantag for the 3.0T but with all the drawbacks to mainteanance and repairs.

Another obvious example is the M56 (16/25); as quick or quicker and equivalent MPG compared to the 550i (17/25) and E550 (15/23).

I love how you glossed over the old vs new S4. Same weight, pretty much same power/torque, w/the 6MT the new 3.0"T" gets 31% better fuel economy. And we've already discussed the Taurus AWD vs SHO + Sonata vs Sonata Turbo ad nauseum. I picked bad examples before because I forgot about all the very good ones.

[GoCougs]

I love how you glossed over the old vs new S4. Same weight, pretty much same power/torque, w/the 6MT the new 3.0"T" gets 31% better fuel economy. And we've already discussed the Taurus AWD vs SHO + Sonata vs Sonata Turbo ad nauseum. I picked bad examples before because I forgot about all the very good ones.

And the far larger, heavier, and more powerful A8L with the 4.2L V8 is how much better in MPG? There is no "glossing" over. Only misunderstanding (and not mine). Just wait till Toyota and Honda debut their new V6s; especially Honda - its j-series dates back to the mid-'90s.

There are N/A AWD cars as big/heavy/powerful as the SHO and get equivalent or better MPG - A8L (20/27), LS460L AWD (16/24) being right off the top of my head.

Remember, there's a reason why there is such a dearth of F/I vehicles in the US. (The value just ain't there.)

[MX793]

The new BMW X1 has changed from a N/A 3.0L I6 (258 hp) to a turbocharged 2.0L I4 (241 hp).  The new turbo model is 0.7 seconds quicker to 60 and returns 20% better fuel economy (per Euro cycle testing).

[the Teuton]

The new BMW X1 has changed from a N/A 3.0L I6 (258 hp) to a turbocharged 2.0L I4 (241 hp).  The new turbo model is 0.7 seconds quicker to 60 and returns 20% better fuel economy (per Euro cycle testing).

1) Is it that much lighter?

2) The PSA engines in the MINI Cooper were a little buzzy. BMW's inline 6s were as smooth as could be.

There's something to be said for a good I6.

[MX793]

1) Is it that much lighter?

2) The PSA engines in the MINI Cooper were a little buzzy. BMW's inline 6s were as smooth as could be.

There's something to be said for a good I6.

I don't believe there's any appreciable weight difference between the 2011 xDrive28i with the I6 and the '12 xDrive28i with the 2.0T.  The MFR claimed curb is 3750 lbs for both.  The performance difference is largely because the 2.0T makes more power than the 3.0 everywhere south of 6000 RPM.

[GoCougs]

The BMW I6 is a relatively old engine. As comparison, the more powerful and larger/heavier IS350, G37 and TL all get equivalent MPG to the 328i.

[MX793]

The BMW I6 is a relatively old engine. As comparison, the more powerful and larger/heavier IS350, G37 and TL all get equivalent MPG to the 328i.

The N52 is only 7 years old.  Far newer than the Nissan VQ or Honda J series and a few years newer than Toyota's GR series V6s.

[GoCougs]

The N52 is only 7 years old.  Far newer than the Nissan VQ or Honda J series and a few years newer than Toyota's GR series V6s.

The N52 is an iteration of the M50, which was all new in '91.

[CALL_911]

The N52 is an iteration of the M50, which was all new in '91.

Where'd you get that from? That's not true.

[MX793]

The N52 is an iteration of the M50, which was all new in '91.

No, it is not.  The N52 was a clean-sheet design utilizing a composite block structure consisting of a magnesium shell over an aluminum "insert" structure that sort of acts as a skeleton for the block.  A very different construction from the more traditional cast iron (and later aluminum) M50/52/54 series of motors.

[sportyaccordy]

The N52 is an iteration of the M50, which was all new in '91.

Lol

[GoCougs]

Yes, a bit of Googling shows I missed the generation by one; either way an I6 is archaic no matter the technology thrown at it. Plus the premise stands that the Japanese build a better 6 cylinder than the Germans, and two of the Japanese engines (J, VQ) are ancient. Their inevitable replacements will bit a big hurt on the Germans.

Oh, and F/I has no material advantage in performance or MPG.

[giant_mtb]

So a N/A 2.0L engine gives the same performance as an identical 2.0L engine that has a turbo on it?

That's quite the claim there, broski.

[280Z Turbo]

So a N/A 2.0L engine gives the same performance as an identical 2.0L engine that has a turbo on it?

That's quite the claim there, broski.

It's true. I definitely didn't gain 50+ hp when I did a turbo swap in the Z.

[giant_mtb]

So people who put a turbo on their N/A cars see absolutely no gains in performance? 

Damn, $5,000 turbo kits must be the biggest ripoff ever!

[MX793]

Yes, a bit of Googling shows I missed the generation by one; either way an I6 is archaic no matter the technology thrown at it. Plus the premise stands that the Japanese build a better 6 cylinder than the Germans, and two of the Japanese engines (J, VQ) are ancient. Their inevitable replacements will bit a big hurt on the Germans.

Oh, and F/I has no material advantage in performance or MPG.

An I6 is "archaic"?  LOL.  Why, because it's been around longer than the V6 layout?  By that logic, the V8 and V12 are also "archaic" compared to the V6 and OHC is archaic compared to pushrods.  V6 is a compromise layout used largely for packaging considerations (transverse, FWD applications where I6s just don't fit well) and one which lacks the superior NVH and balance properties of an inline 6.

[GoCougs]

An I6 is "archaic"?  LOL.  Why, because it's been around longer than the V6 layout?  By that logic, the V8 and V12 are also "archaic" compared to the V6 and OHC is archaic compared to pushrods.  V6 is a compromise layout used largely for packaging considerations (transverse, FWD applications where I6s just don't fit well) and one which lacks the superior NVH and balance properties of an inline 6.

Nah, pooprods are archaic too, and much like L6, why hardly anyone makes them anymore.

So why did RWD-centric automakers such as M-B, and high-volume RWD products such as full-size pickups, dump the L6 long ago?

[Galaxy]

So why did RWD-centric automakers such as M-B, and high-volume RWD products such as full-size pickups, dump the L6 long ago?

In Mercedes-Benses case one big factor was cost cutting. The M112 V6, was an M113 V8 with two cylinders chopped off. That is why the M112 is a 90deg engine, even though 60deg would be more ideal for a V6.

Packaging is another reason, the V6 gives you much more interior space.

MX793 is correct though. The I6 has both primary and secondary mechanical engine balance, making it almost perfect.

[MX793]

Nah, pooprods are archaic too, and much like L6, why hardly anyone makes them anymore.

So why did RWD-centric automakers such as M-B, and high-volume RWD products such as full-size pickups, dump the L6 long ago?

In the case of MB, as Galaxy said, it was cheaper to develop a V6 via lopping two cylinders off of a V8 than to continue to develop I6 motors which have nothing in common with other powerplants (although they could have run a line of I6s that have commonality with their I4s).  Additionally, even in RWD application the shorter length of a V6 has packaging benefits what with modern frontal crash requirements (and now pedestrian safety requirements).

As to pickups, in many instances it was a case of being cheaper/easier to lop two cylinders off of an existing V8 already used in that truck than to try to package a longer I6 powerplant.  Dodge's 3.9L Magnum V6 and GM's Vortec 4300 were both derived from V8s (the 5.2L Magnum and 5.7L small block, respectively).  Additionally, since I6s are generally too long for transverse FWD applications (particularly ones that can have displacements suitable for pickup truck use), focusing on a single line of V6 engines that can be used in both RWD/truck applications and FWD vehicles is more cost effective than pumping money into two different 6-cylinder engine configurations.

I would point out that I6s are still extensively used for heavy duty trucks (semis, dump trucks, buses, etc).

[hotrodalex]

I'm guessing Cougs has never driven a BMW with an inline 6. ()

[Eye of the Tiger]

I'm guessing Cougs has never driven a BMW with an inline 6. ()

smooooth torque power

[NomisR]

Rotary > Pistons!

[Mustangfan2003]

Rotary > Pistons!

Sure is, V6 power with V8 fuel economy

[NomisR]

Sure is, V6 power with V8 fuel economy

That's because it lacks development, if it was really that bad, all the manufacturers wouldn't be attempting development in the late 60s-70s. 

[MX793]

That's because it lacks development, if it was really that bad, all the manufacturers wouldn't be attempting development in the late 60s-70s. 

Or that's why all of them but 1 stopped dabbling and development....

[sportyaccordy]

Sure is, V6 power with V8 fuel economy

More like 4 banger power

But the handling!!!

[MX793]

More like 4 banger power

But the handling!!!

4 cylinder torque
V6 power
V8 fuel economy